June 19, 2019
Hiring 11 October 2016
3 Reasons Why More Candidates Means More Headaches!
Gisel Malek
job candidates, people looking for jobs, millennial job seekers, hiring, recruiting

Candidates come through in a variety of ways; whether it is from a referral, job boards or social media, recruiters have more access than ever before. However, having all this access means finding the most qualified candidates is that much more difficult for you.

Some recruiters believe that having more candidates means they are more likely to find who they need to fill those empty positions. However, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Without the proper planning, having access to thousands of applicants and hoping one of them will somehow “work out” can actually be damaging for any organization. 

Here’s why:

1. Waste of money! 

For organizations that are starting out and are watching their bottom line and even for those that aren’t, the amount of money that is spent for interviewing recruits is outrageously high. Not to mention, the time your employees would be taking out of their prospective roles in order to interview all of those candidates would be unproductive and costly. According to this Investopedia article, “...even an $8/hour employee can end up costing a company around $3,500 in turnover costs, both direct and indirect.” 

2. How overwhelming! 

"An overwhelmed recruiter is an unhappy recruiter"

As a recruiter, you shouldn’t be staffing, they should be evaluating recruits that fit with the organization’s culture, with the ability to perform. You can lose your mind having to go through hundreds of candidates to fill one or two roles. It’s really just giving yourself more work and as a result, more stress. 

People can get creative with their resumes and “experience” and binge-apply to many jobs at once. Places like job boards and third party recruiters give you access to anybody, not necessarily the right somebody. The biggest issue that comes with having too many candidates in your talent pool is that you have more unnecessary work to do filtering through everyone. 

It’s like this: If you start out with 100 then you narrow it down to 25-40, and again to 10-15. You may bring those people in for an interview and then select between 3 or 4 you finally want to extend that offer to. That whole process just sounds exhausting and unnecessary, not to mention costly. If you started at 10-15, then narrowed down to the one you want to hire, you would be saving on your resources not to mention your sanity! 

3. Ineffective!

The whole point of having a lot of candidates to select from is to be able to find the person you are looking for. We have established that throwing money away to do it and putting yourself under a pile of work, sifting through candidates, is not the most effective way and can cause way too much stress. But most importantly, it’s ineffective! 

Who's to say that even if you do find a candidate you want to hire, they are going to fit well within the company culture and be a great addition to your team? There is not much hope when the process consists of finding as many as you can. Like Steve Jobs said: 

"Quality is much better than quantity, One home run is better than two doubles"

Qualified candidates are determined by the skills that they have and the work that they are able to do for you. It doesn’t matter if there are hundreds of applicants and candidates that have met the requirements on paper for any given position because without determining how they interact with the employees of your organization and the skill level they have, you risk high turnover. 

How might you hit a home-run? By evaluating your candidates through projects and challenges created by you and your teams. Having the ability to sift through candidates in a cost effective way will not only save you on resources but it will help you to find that next amazing start on your team!

Want to learn more about performance-based hiring? Sign up for a demo with our team!